New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-30
THE RESULTS OF TIE RAG CASE.
FAILURE OF THE EFFORT TO DAMAGE HKALTH
OFFICER SMITHS REPUTATION.

| FAILURE OF THE EFFORT TO DAMAGE HKALTH
OFFICER SMITHS REPUTATION.
| To tie Edttor Of The Tribune
SIR: In the rag against E. b. Bartlett Co and
the Health Office william NJ Smith, because of the dis
infection Of the rags on the vgilane and Battagla IN
1888 the trial begun upon the statements OF COM
binatons and conspiracy between the defendants anu
their wrongful In carrying out this conspiracy 10
the end that the rags OF the plaintiffs were hed against
their demand until charges for nghterage storage ana
disinfection were paid
The argument was continuous throughout the trial. aud
supported with some limitations by the Court that unless
there was an unlawful combination and conspiracy 70
send these rags place where they could DO seeu anu
held by the defendant Bartlett the charges Oh e co
plant we're not supported. But the Judge In MS maj
direction ruled that the goods held without
under the statutes Of the State or the United ses "
require payment the Bartles for the services they
rendered, and that there lien for distinction or
ghterage where the performed as In ths
CASE by third parties and not by the Health Ocer ana
his employees The Judge defined legal tort as disn-
guished from conspiracy and other torts In that bad
intent was not but detention OF the
plaintiffs rags without legal authority gave right OF re-
cOvery TO the owners and therefore directed Veruc
against Bartlett & Co. for the amount OF their Dill
The conspiracy however he left to the jury In
structng that must be shown to their sasiacon
that there was combination between the Health ofhcer
and Mr. Bartlett to place these rags in Mr. Bartetts
hands so that he could make bill against them to the
damage OF the plaintiff The court left this question I'd
be determined from differences from acts ana decaraohs
OF the defendants He stated that the evidence against
Dr. Smith not SATISFACTORY but the jury might take
the case upon all the evidence and the jury should nno
verdict against the defendants that then they might
find such damages from the detention OF the goods as
they should think right The evidence was WITHOUT
contradiction the rags the Vgante were sent 10
the Baltic Stores for dsnecon under the speTc's'on0
United Stats officers on the 9th 10th Of June, and
~ fran fhaC
tary OF the Treasury put in evidence IN which the
Collector reports he has ordered the Battaga rags
Robbins Reef for distinction under secuon ZooV
United states Revised Statutes. The court granted
request OF the defendants to charge that the Health
Oacer had the right to send the Battagias rags to
Robbins Reef dsnect0n and also charged the jury
that the Health officer though not required by law to do
So had the right advise either tho Secretary OF the
Treasury or the Collector to tho necessity Oh the dsn
lection OF rags TO their repeated requests 1he
he should do So The charges paid to Bartlett Co. IN
October 1885 were SjS11. The result Is that there Is
most singular change in tho form OF the whole action
under the rule stated by the court and Instead OF YER
diet on the question Of conspiracy the plaintiffs have
verdict agains. Bartlett Co. for what Is virtually
ghterage dislnfection, etc. and interest
The charges OF combination and conspiracy which the
court previously held must be proven against OF the
defendants disappeared and there is no verdict against
the Health Ocer not even an inference against nun Ny
ei Their the rule OF the court or the verdict
All tho tremendous efforts made In the course OF ten
days trial to official acts Of the Heat tn Ocer
and to least inference ocorrupo failedand
10 was shown that his official acts in respect to these
rags were in accordance with the rules previously
adopted by the United States Treasury Department and
those formulated by the conferences Of health and quar-
antine officers In Washington, in December, 1884, and
New-York April 49, 1885, and the plaintiffs have simply
a moneyed Judgment against +. b. Bartlett * co.
The statement the law by the court as to the author
fly 10 retain the goods and lien for services was
new and contrary to the custom to the payment for
lighters sevedores at Quarantine. which the court
refused 10 consider and the exceptions taken
by Messrs Bartlett Co. will undoubtedly be the oun
dalton Of an appeal by them from the Judgment.
Half verdict Is verdict
II impossible TO hold the one OF conspiracy be-
tween two persons and then give Judgment against one
OF them for the detention OF goods without legal author
ity.
The case OF conspiracy and yet tho jury do not
agree as to any conspiracy when allowed to infer
It, and allowed to supply bad ntenttrom subsequent acts
and declarations.
A verdict against DIR. Smith impossible under the
charge court unless the unlawful combination OF
persons 10 perform unlawful act was proven And
all the Health officers proven to be lawful
Nene- York, April 30. 1887. JUSTICE